Simon Busuttil’s stupid sliding tackle

On migration, Simon Busuttil is racing with the hares and hunting with the hounds.

Back in June he correctly criticised the government over a decision to push back migrants to Libya. Subsequently, he supported the government's hardline position on the Salamis stand-off, which risked leaving hundreds of people stranded on the high seas. This humanitarian tragedy was only averted after Italy relieved Malta of its obligations.

Now he raises questions on whether Syrian asylum seekers should have been brought in to Malta after being rescued because Lampedusa was the nearest port of call.

In so doing he is taking the same stand taken by Joseph Muscat when in opposition. Back in April 2011 Joseph Muscat suggested that a group of 171 immigrants rescued off Lampedusa should be sent back to Italy. To this, then prime minister Lawrence Gonzi replied: "How can one go onto a child or a man and tell them, 'I saved you from death, now tonight I'm going to pack you up, put you in a plane and send you to Italy'?"

Yesterday in parliament Busuttil questioned whether Malta should have accepted to bring in the Syrian asylum seekers on a boat of migrants who were drowning at sea. In this case Malta ended up taking 156 migrants while Italy took the other 56. In such a situation, bickering on who should take responsibility over migrants were drowning would have been tragic and would have exposed us as a heartless nation.

Busuttil is correct in pointing out the contradictions of Labour's migration policy. But he may well have done this without questioning one rare occasion where Muscat put humanitarian considerations before his usual appeal to national egoism.

Curiously Busuttil chose to win points among the xenophobic crowd on one of those rare occasions where people in general have been more sensitive to the plight of those involved, simply because they look so much like us.

In fact one hopes that the government's new position represents a shift in policy from the days when this government was effectively planning a pushback of 45 sub-Saharan migrants to a country where militias have a license to shoot at migrants, something which happened again in this particular case.

It would be tragic if the government is singling out this group of migrants for humanitarian treatment, simply because of the regional link. Muscat's speech in Ghaxaq on Sunday suggests that this may well be the case. "We are not only dealing with people from Somalia and Eritrea but with people from Syria, the same people who risk their life, their job, because they fear war."

The official press release reporting Muscat's speech, highlights the fact that the group included a group of medical doctors including a neurologist. But what exactly is the difference between escaping war in Somalia and escaping war in Syria? The only difference lies in the level and intensity of media coverage. African lives seem to occupy the lowest rung in the hierarchy of life.

Moreover despite the softening of his stance vis-à-vis migrants, Muscat has upped the tempo in his verbal attacks on the European Union, forgetting that the problem in this case is not the European Union but the Council of Ministers, composed of individual member states.

For any long-term solution through which migrants applying for asylum without having to cross the Mediterranean sea are divided among all 27 EU member states requires the agreement of all member states.

The other legitimate solution, revising Dublin 2 in a way that migrants granted humanitarian status can be given travel documents to settle wherever they like, also requires consensus. Talking about a veto may in itself be counterproductive to seeking a new, much-needed consensus among 27 independent nation states.